Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Johal et al

Filing 15

ORDER GRANTING 8 MOTION to Remand and DENYING Request for Attorneys' Fees. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 7/30/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY,

10

No. C 12-02753 JSW

11
v.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Plaintiff,
12
13

BALBINDER JOHAL, NANKI JOHAL, and
DOES 1-100,

14

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REMAND AND DENYING
REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’
FEES

Defendants.
/

15
16

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the Motion to Remand filed

17

by Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. On July 19, 2012, the Court issued an

18

Order to Show Cause to the Defendants directing them to show cause why the case should not

19

be remanded to the Contra Costa Superior Court. On July 27, 2012, Defendants filed a timely

20

response. The Court has considered the parties’ papers, including Defendants response to the

21

Order to Show Cause, and it finds the matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. See

22

N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The Court VACATES the hearing scheduled for August 3, 2012, and

23

HEREBY GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, DENIES the request for attorneys’ fees, and

24

REMANDS this matter to Contra Costa County Superior Court.
On May 30, 2012, Defendant Balbinder Johal (“Defendant”) removed this action on the

25
26

basis of a federal question. Plaintiff moves to remand and asserts that removal was untimely

27

and asserts that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action.1

28
It also appears that Defendants may not have removed in a timely fashion.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
1

1

“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United

2

States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant ... to the district court of the

3

United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”

4

Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1983) (citation

5

omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441. However, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

6

See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). An action

7

originally filed in state court may be removed to federal court only if the district court could

8

have exercised jurisdiction over such action if initially filed there. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a);

9

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on the party seeking removal. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.

12

1992). Moreover, a court must construe the removal statute strictly and reject jurisdiction if

13

there is any doubt regarding whether removal was proper. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480,

14

1485 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if

15

there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”)

16

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-

17

pleaded complaint rule.’” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. The well-pleaded complaint rule

18

recognizes that the plaintiff is the master of his or her claim. “[H]e or she may avoid federal

19

jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Id. Thus, under the well-pleaded complaint

20

rule, federal-question jurisdiction arises where the “complaint establishes either that federal law

21

creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution

22

of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 27-28.

23

The underlying state court action is an unlawful detainer action and, thus, federal law

24

does not create the cause of action. Moreover, the Court concludes that the claim will not

25

necessarily depend upon the resolution of a substantial question of federal law, because Plaintiff

26

need not prove compliance with the federal law relied upon by Defendant to establish its claim.

27

See, e.g., Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng. & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314-15 (2005).

28
2

1

Furthermore, a court cannot exercise removal jurisdiction on the ground that the

2

complaint gives rise to a potential or an anticipated defense that might raise a federal question,

3

even if the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case. Franchise Tax Board, 463

4

U.S. at 10, 14; see also Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393 (“[I]t is now settled law that a case may not

5

be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, including the defense of pre-

6

emption, even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties

7

concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.”) (emphasis in original).

incurred as a result of Defendants’ allegedly improper removal. “An order remanding the case

10

may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as

11
For the Northern District of California

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), Plaintiff requests an award of attorneys’ fees and costs

9

United States District Court

8

a result of the removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). To determine whether to award costs and fees

12

under § 1447(c), this Court has a “great deal of discretion.” Morris v. Bridgestone/Firestone,

13

Inc., 985 F.2d 238, 240 (9th Cir. 1993). Although it was not ultimately persuaded by

14

Defendants’ arguments, the Court does not find that removal was frivolous or motivated by bad

15

faith. The Court therefore declines to exercise its discretion to award Plaintiff’s fees and costs

16

under § 1447(c).

17

Therefore, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter, and

18

it HEREBY GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, DENIES the request for attorneys’ fees, and

19

REMANDS this action to Contra Costa Superior Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also

20

Maniar v. FDIC, 979 F.2d 782, 785 (9th Cir. 1992).

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: July 30, 2012
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
DEUTSCH BANK NATIONAL TRUST
6 COMPANY,

Case Number: CV12-02753 JSW

Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
8

v.

9 BALBINDER JOHAL et al,
Defendant.

/

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
13
That on July 30, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
14 said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office
15 delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
16
17

Balbinder Johan
18 Naiki Johan
4803 Buckboard Way
19 Richmond, CA 94803
20
21 Dated: July 30, 2012
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Richard W. Winking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk